No Fear Flying

This article appeared in the October 2017 issue of the American Bonanza Society magazine - www.bonanza.org

While the majority of my flying is with pilots that fly Bonanzas, most of them have never been through the BPPP program.  Almost all of them are members of the American Bonanza Society, and as an ambassador of the organization, I try to show the value of the membership through the BPPP program.  As much as I fly with many of these pilots, I sense apprehension in signing up for the program and think part of it may be due to the lack of understanding of what to expect.  In attempt to expose some of the elements of the program further, we will give an overview of the process and review two of my favorite BPPP maneuvers.

The BPPP program is divided into two segments:  Ground and Flight.  The ground portion can be done online at the ABS Online Learning Center in the comfort of your home or office.  Much effort has been put into the creation of the online learning system to make it interesting and relevant.  I know many pilots that completed the online training with very positive reports on the value of the content provided and that there were new concepts learned from the experience. The flight portion is done in your aircraft and typically takes about 4 hours, which include a little over an hour dedicated to pre-flight and post-flight discussion.  The actual time in the aircraft varies, but can push beyond 3 hours, depending on whether you need an IPC or BFR (or both) out of the experience.  You and your instructor will review the requirements to meet the objectives for the day so you know what to expect.  For example, if this is your first BPPP check out, you will see that emergency gear extension is a required item. You can find this documentation on the ABS website in the “training” section. There are no surprises on the flight portion of the BPPP Program, especially if you take the time to review the list of maneuvers beforehand. 

You will notice that the flight portion of the program looks similar to what is required on a Private Pilot Flight Test.  While most of the maneuvers may look familiar to you, there may be some differences to what you have experienced while preparing for a check ride.  Additionally, you will find items that aren’t typically covered in your basic syllabus, such as a door unexpectedly opening on takeoff.

Two of my favorite maneuvers might sound routine, but I picked these two because they highlight some of the adverse characteristics of the airplane in various configurations that, if left unchecked, can leave the pilot in a dangerous position with an outcome they didn’t expect.   They are the Forced Landing and the Spiral demonstration.

Forced Landing
Forced landings are practiced during flight reviews, aircraft checkouts and in preparation for various pilot licenses.  The Private Pilot syllabus has completion standards for emergency landings and the Commercial Pilot syllabus goes a step further, requiring a precision 180 degree, engine out landing.  The BPPP Forced Landing is a maneuver that simulates an engine failure at a specific spot above an airport and is designed to demonstrate negative characteristics of aircraft configuration and required planning that can lead to a successful outcome. Since the Bonanza is a single engine aircraft, it only makes sense to make sure we understand these characteristics when training for an off-airport landing.

The maneuver starts from a position called High Key.  This position is considered “upwind” to the landing runway, abeam the numbers. (See the BPPP Diagram to the right).  Before starting the maneuver, it is advisable to reduce power to a low-speed cruise setting in order to cool the engine, which can be done as the pilot descends to the starting altitude of the maneuver – 2500 feet above ground.  Once at the High Key position, the instructor will simulate an engine failure by gradually reducing the power.  Sometimes, I will ask the pilot to perform the power reduction if they appear anxious about the maneuver.

Best Glide airspeed is established by the pilot and the aircraft is configured as follows:

• Manifold Pressure: 10-11 Inches
• Propeller: High RPM
• Gear: Down
• Vertical Speed: Approximately 700 fpm to simulate glide

As the pilot makes the turn to crosswind and then downwind, the pilot should vary the bank angle to compensate for the wind and drift.  Once on the downwind segment, the aircraft should be descending through about 1500 feet AGL and will have gone through at least the memory items for an emergency landing.  Throughout the maneuver, the pilot should be constantly judging distance from the runway and the remaining altitude for the maneuver.  I will typically point out the sink rate, which will seem unusually high to a pilot transitioning from a smaller, non-complex aircraft.  As the pilot turns base, it becomes clear whether we are going to make the field.  I always brief the maneuver with the pilot beforehand to make sure they know that power should be added if it appears they aren’t going to make the field. Touchdown should be normal with proper crosswind control deflection techniques as required.

Because this is intended to be a controlled instructional session, there are certain limitations we set in the BPPP program to add a margin of safety, such as the following:

• Only paved runways
• Runway at least 4000 ft.
• Gear down throughout the whole maneuver
• Propeller High RPM

While some of these configurations may be contrary to what you may do in a real-life engine failure, remember that this is a demonstration of the negative characteristics of the aircraft in certain configurations.  That being said, if the pilot doesn’t make the airfield, it doesn’t constitute a failure of the maneuver.  Pilots new to Bonanzas are surprised at the high sink rate of the aircraft and the tremendous disadvantage of drag.  I make sure to brief the pilot on methods to limit drag and to properly plan in order to increase the chances of making the field.  I especially enjoy this maneuver, because some of the best conversations come out of performing this maneuver - It gets pilots thinking about how to anticipate aircraft performance in this situation and how to properly plan crosswind, downwind, base and final.

Spiral Demonstration
The Spiral Demonstration is a maneuver designed to show how the slightly negative roll characteristics of the aircraft can develop into an aggressive descending spiral and techniques for recovering from the maneuver properly.

The Spiral Demonstration starts at least 3000 ft. AGL or higher, preferably in smooth air.  In Bonanzas, we slow the aircraft down to about 100 KIAS.  I have the pilot set the power to maintain 100 KIAS and trim the aircraft for level flight.  I will demonstrate how a push on the yoke will cause the aircraft to pitch down, but after a few oscillations will generally return to level flight.  I will do the same with the rudder much in the same way I did with the yoke.

To demonstrate the negative stability characteristics in roll, I will ask the student to let go of the yoke and allow the aircraft to eventually enter a bank.  Sometimes I will put a little pressure on one of the rudders to help accelerate the maneuver.  I explain how a distracted pilot can let a bank that goes unchecked to accelerate into a rapidly descending spiral.  As per BPPP standards, we terminate the maneuver once the aircraft approaches 60 degrees of bank or maneuvering speed.

Recovery from the maneuver is demonstrated by leveling the wings and starting a slight pitch up, being mindful of the G-force induced by doing so.  Many pilot’s natural reaction is to pull on the yoke when they see the extreme nose-down attitude, when in-fact the control pressures will require you to push on the yoke to prevent the aircraft from pitching up aggressively and inducing a high G-load.  As you might suspect, a better recovery to this situation would be to reduce power so that the extreme pitch up and subsequent G-forces are less.  I enjoy doing both demonstrations during the BPPP Flight portion of the program so that the pilot can see the differences in control pressures and technique.

The BPPP Program is a great way to get to know your aircraft better and to practice situations you don’t normally encounter.  If you haven’t taken the BPPP course yet, I encourage you to go to the ABS Website and review some of the materials under the Training Section so you can see what it is all about.  Review the list of BPPP instructors and find one that is convenient for you, or one that specializes in equipment installed in your aircraft. I guarantee that you will have fun, learn more about your aircraft, and maybe even make a friend in the process.

Distractions and Unrealistic Scenarios

This article appeared in the June 2017 issue of the American Bonanza Society magazine - www.bonanza.org

A friend of mine was heading home from a business appointment out on the west coast.  He had fueled up for the final leg, picked up his IFR clearance and was eventually cleared to his final altitude of 12,000 feet.  He set the autopilot and settled in for the three-hour flight back to Chicago.

About 100 miles from his destination, the engine stuttered, then quit.  The pilot notified the controller of the problem and requested vectors to the nearest airport, which was right below him.  The airport boasted a 5000ft runway and was clear of obstacles on either side. The weather was clear and it was day time.  He spiraled down and entered a short downwind, a base and then final.  He didn't judge his spacing correctly and landed short of the runway by about 700 feet where the aircraft experienced substantial damage. The pilot sustained serious injuries, but made a full recovery.

By all accounts, the pilot should have had plenty of time to go through the checklist, configure the aircraft and get lined up for the intended landing point – the runway.  Was he a good pilot? Yes.  Did he know his aircraft? Absolutely! Why then, did the outcome of this maneuver that is often practiced in the training environment literally end up short?

When preparing for a training session with an instructor, the trainee typically gets a good night’s sleep and studies as much as possible before the big day.  Many of the training objectives are predictable and as a student, or pilot receiving instruction, you have some inkling that certain things – such as an engine failure - are bound to happen at some point.  This isn’t so in real life as there are many variables creep up on us.  You may be on the third leg of flying, it may be night time, and the typical pressures that gnaw at us may be rearing their ugly head– schedules, passengers, etc.  When something dramatic happens such as an engine failure while we are in the air, there is typically a sense of disbelief, a pause and then the moment where training kicks in.

But, does the training always just magically kick in as I’ve read so many times in stories about close calls?  Depending upon the situation, it might not, or at least it may abbreviate itself and in your haste to get on the ground, you may miss things on the checklist - if you even pulled out the checklist at all.  When a real incident happens, your heart rate starts to elevate, blood pressure goes up and urgency kicks in.  It's easy to make good decisions while you are calm, but how do you know if you will make good decisions when stress is at its highest point?

A good flight instructor will explore the boundaries of a pilot’s limits and attempt to add stress or to get that heart rate going.  How is this done?  That’s where unrealistic training scenarios come into play.

To give an example, I was performing an Instrument Proficiency Check with a student.  He was doing great.  Wait – he was doing fantastic! He was flawless on his approach briefings, radio setup, and standard failures that were presented to him.  So, what did I do?  I knocked his checklist on the floor. As he went to pick it up, I switched the localizer frequency to something else while he wasn’t looking, then covered up his attitude indicator. I also told him that his autopilot was broke, then I told him that he was losing power on his left engine and brought the throttle back to 15 inches.

The pilot did well as he dealt with each problem, but he didn’t think this was a very fair and accurate example of what could happen on a flight.  He told me that in all seriousness, if all of that happened to him on a real flight, he might have just accepted his fate.  He was clearly frustrated - and that was my goal.  We discussed the flight once we were on the ground and I explained that it wasn't was my intention to see if he could handle everything I threw at him, my goals were as follows:

• Create a distraction
• Try to increase the heart rate
• Accelerate the situation
• Try to frustrate
• Evaluate the outcome

Is this just another evil flight instructor trick?  Maybe.  Was this a good way to evaluate how a pilot will react when things aren’t going their way in the real world? Absolutely!

When something unexpected happens, frustration will typically manifest itself as the pilot works their way through a problem. Thoughts are bound to go through the pilot’s head they manage disbelief at the situation and try to reconcile how this could have happened.  (Why didn’t my mechanic find this at annual time? Didn’t I check the fuel level before departing?  Why is this happening to me right now?)  This is certainly an aspect of real life that is nearly impossible to replicate in the training environment, but as instructors, we try to do what we can to emulate it the best we can with the tools we have.

The next time an instructor starts to throw unrealistic scenarios at you during a flight review or an instrument proficiency check, know that they are trying to saturate your workload or try to explore the limits of your ability to cope and to observe your performance in a controlled environment.  As with any training event, be sure to debrief with your instructor, especially on items you felt may have been unfair or not necessarily applicable to your type of flying.  They may be evaluating you on something completely different than what you thought, so gaining this valuable feedback is very important.  Conversely, the instructor should know if you are ready to advance beyond aircraft handling and procedures, because if those aren’t solid, there is no point in adding unnecessary frustration.

Every instructor wants to create a positive and valuable experience, so if you are one of those pilots that have owned the same airplane for many years, fly hundreds of hours per year, and are very proficient, a good instructor is going to do a little more than make sure you have procedures down pat by throwing you a curve ball that you didn't expect.

My ATP Check Ride

I wrote the following blog the day after my checkride in 2016.  I am actually publishing it now since I finally found my original post:

On Saturday January 30, 2016, I took my ATP Multi-Engine Check ride in Janesville, Wisconsin with Chris Anderson – Designated Pilot Examiner.  Start time – 9am.

I departed with my mentor and the instructor that had instructed me for just about every one of my ratings - John “Doc” Magon - and a good friend of mine of many years, Ken Cooper from KGYY at 8am for an arrival at 8:50am in Janesville.  Doc was instrumental in giving me the training I needed in order to get this whole thing accomplished, and Ken was unbelievably generous in allowing me to use his Cessna 310 for the training and test.

Other than the directional gyro acting a little goofy, the morning couldn’t have been nicer – it was smooth as silk, and there was nobody in the pattern or on the frequency when we arrived in Janesville. 

Meet Chris Anderson – designated pilot examiner for the FAA.  Truth be told, this is actually the third time we have met, which I will get into shortly.  Preflight was completed and we got into the plane.  Startup sequence went well, and we received our taxi clearance for runway 22.  Upon heading for taxiway D, from the ramp, the tower called and said that we had passed taxiway D and it was behind us.  I stopped the plane and asked point-blank – “did I just fail the check ride?”  Not a good way to set the stage for the rest of the morning.

After being reassured that we were fine and I could proceed, we finally got to Runway 22.  Before takeoff items all checked out and I was given instructions to turn right heading 280 and intercept V97 – Maintain 2700.   I was also instructed to get the IFR hood on and to be on instruments at 100 ft. after takeoff.

Takeoff went fine and I got the hood on at about 100 ft.   At 400 ft, he failed the right engine on me.  I went through the memory checklist and simulated feathering the engine.  Everything successful so far.  The examiner told me to climb to 2700 ft MSL and expect Radar Vectors to the RNAV 22 approach at JVL.  I was about 12 miles southwest of TEGGU, and it took every bit of that distance to get up to 2700ft.  With only about 300 fpm climb, I was sweating it.  I arrived at 2700 ft just as I got my first vector on the final approach course – about 3 miles outside of the Final Approach Fix.  GPS locked and loaded – I almost forgot to switch from VOR/LOC mode.  We had to make one landing with no flaps, so I declared that I wouldn’t use any flaps on this approach especially with the failed engine.  The approach was uneventful, and we taxied back to runway 22 for another take off.  That approach was so intense, I had to ask the tower twice for taxi instructions back to runway 22 (Taxi back via alpha – cross runway 32).

Instructions upon take off were just the same as before – right turn to 280 and intercept V97 – climb to 4500 ft.  We did that without incident and after a few minutes, we started to do the stall exercises.  We did three of them – one straight ahead, one to the right, and one to the left - both at 20 degrees of bank (One with flaps down and gear down).  We then did unusual attitude recoveries – one nose high, and one nose low – Both with no attitude indicator.  Recoveries on all were a success.  I started to feel a lot better about how the check ride was going.  He then said that he would vector me in for the ILS 4 at Janesville.

I received vectors to the northwest of the airport, which took me off guard since the ILS extends to the south west, then I realized what he was doing.  He wanted me to perform the DME Arc to the ILS4.  Oh boy, I haven’t practiced one of those in a couple of years, and I certainly didn’t really know how to work it with the navigation equipment on-board the aircraft (A Garmin GNS480 – no, not a 430… It was a 480), so I set up the GPS with what I thought was correct, and also set up all of the old school equipment (DME and VOR) for a backup.  The GPS worked well until I was about a mile from the ILS intercept, so while I was trying to decipher what was going on, I just started to turn inbound ILS (a little late since I didn’t have my lead radial set up either).  Just as I turned on to the ILS, he failed an engine.  I continued the approach down to about 1400 ft and I had to do a missed.  New instructions were climbing right turn to the JVL VOR.  After trying to climb a couple of hundred feet, I got my engine back.  He wanted full cruise speed to the VOR and wanted me to set up for the VOR approach at Beloit, Wisconsin. 

I had been to Beloit a couple of times before, so from memory, I set up C44 in the GPS and to my dismay an airport in Connecticut came up!  I went back to the approach chart and found out I was dyslexic – it was actually 44C.  Perfect!   I didn’t need the GPS, but I wanted to make sure that I had everything setup on the navigator so that I had the best situational awareness possible.  I got to the VOR, did the outbound leg, turned inbound (Almost missed doing an ATC call on the procedure turn inbound) and did the approach to the missed approach point – performed missed approach – no failures on this approach.  Missed approach instructions were to climb to 3100 ft and expect the ILS 32 at JVL and circle to runway 22.

I was supposed to navigate to TIRRO, but because of other traffic inbound to Janesville, I needed to do a 360 for spacing, and I got a vector on the final approach course.  I needed to report JODER inbound.  Just after passing JODER as we were flying down the glideslope, he failed an engine on me.  I had mentioned that our altitude for circling was 1900.  He told me to look again – Ugh – almost screwed that up – the Altitude to break off was 1260 because I was able to identify the FOGAS intersection.  I still don’t exactly know why approach is set up that way.  I broke out at minimums.  I needed to maintain +50 and -0 on this approach – the tightest tolerances and I was rock solid at 1280 the whole way in. 

We made a circling approach to runway 22 and did our final landing.  His hand was still on the throttle that he failed, so the landing wasn’t the prettiest, but we did it.

Once turning off the runway and doing the after landing checklist, I asked him how he thought it went.  He said “the check ride is not over yet”.  So, not feeling too great, I taxied in to the Janesville Jet Center and shut it down.  He finally said – “good job – you passed.”  We debriefed on a couple of items (mostly him noticing me fumbling on the DME ARC, and also continued follow-up counseling on how crappy light planes perform on only one engine.  Point well taken.

Two hours of flight - Temporary flight certificate issued – Success!

Well, the story did end there, but it actually started way back on December 10^th, where I actually met the examiner for the first time.  We did the oral examination, which was actually quite tough.  I thought I was well prepared for the oral, but I really just stumbled through a lot of the scenario questions. 

I had a problem with explaining the fuel system.  I prepared a beautiful explanation of the Beechcraft Baron fuel system and then realized my error.  I re-explained things, describing the Cessna system satisfactorily.  He asked if I need to do a RAIM check before departing if expecting an RNAV approach at the destination.  I said yes - Wrong.  He said if you have WAAS, you don't need to do a RAIM check.  He asked how to perform a RAIM check.  I explained the procedure on the Garmin 480.  He asked if there was any other way.  I said that there was a function on the FAA website (I had barely remembered this).  I guess I remembered correctly.

Since you have WAAS and you don't have to do a RAIM check - What are you required to do before departing IFR and expecting to do an RNAV approach at the destination?  Check for GPS NOTAMs. I honestly couldn't believe I remembered this one.

Do you have to have a current database to do an RNAV approach?  I said no.  He asked me to walk through what you would need to do.  I mentioned that you would need to make sure there were no changes to the approach since the last revision.  I referenced the AIM where it mentions that.  ON A TECHNICALITY - he corrected me and showed me that all Garmin equipment have a statement in the pilots operating manual that says "Approaches may not be flown with an expired database.".  This supersedes what the AIM says - He let me off on that one.

Is the STEC 55X approved for single engine approaches?  I said that we have used it for single engine approaches in practice, and has worked well when trimmed properly.  I said that since we had a failed engine and it was an emergency condition, I would use it if I needed to.  He told me to look this one up and we moved on. (Most GA autopilots have a notation in the operating manual of whether this is approved or not)

We talked about how the STEC is driven (Turn coordinator), and he asked some questions about the gyro for the HSI. I mentioned that it was a remote and located in the nose.  - He asked me to get this clarified.  I did get it clarified and its actually in the tail.

Do we need to do a VOR check? I said no because we have WAAS.  Correct answer, but he asked if we need to do a VOR check if we are planning on doing a VOR approach? The answer was yes.

Total Electrical failure -  Name everything that dies.  This was a hard question to answer only because it was hard to catalog everything in my mind.  I got everything he was looking for but I forgot about the flaps not working.  Ok, now what do you have left / what still works?  Name them -- Including instruments, systems, etc.   UGH!

Total Electrical Failure scenario -- would the boots still work?  I said no because there was an electronic system that controlled how the boots inflate and deflate.

Spin recovery - We discussed the negative effects of spins in a twin - he wanted to know the recovery procedures.  I gave him the typical answer of opposite rudder, power off, nose down to break the stall.  He wanted the proper sequence - which comes first.  I admittedly stumbled through this and said that I would do them all fluidly and at the same time.  He didn’t like that and was looking for the FAA official procedure - He mentioned the mnemonic PARE - Power off, Aileron neutral, Rudder opposite, Elevator down. The second he said PARE, I rattled it off.

Discussion of the effects of Forward and aft CG on aircraft performance, stall speed, Vmc. Performance discussion was OK / Vmc discussion OK / I screwed up on the effects on stall speed and didn't explain it correctly at first, but got through it.

A laborious part of the oral started with the following question:  What is my single engine rate of climb today.  Simple enough, but then he asked if I would be able to meet obstacle clearance requirements for IFR departure.  I was having the brain fart of the century - I had 400 ft per nautical mile in my head.  It’s actually 200ft per NM up to 400 ft.  It took me forever to calculate the 200ft per NM to rate of climb - I couldn't find the conversion chart that I usually used and ended up fumbling with my calculator.  We eventually walked through the scenario, but because I didn't fluidly explain everything and found myself fumbling, I thought I failed right there, but I guess I didn't.

We talked about take-off and landing at Denver and considerations for single engine operations / flight over mountains / flight at 16K ft. and what would happen if I lost an engine / Effects of altitude on Vyse / estimating Vyse at 16,000 ft. - All of that was OK.

Went over all the performance charts in the book and reviewed the Accelerate-go and Accelerate-Stop charts closely.  Did weight change to Weight and balance - added 250 lb person.  No problem.

He asked me to show him that the airplane was airworthy, so we looked through the logs and I walked him through the logbooks.  He asked me to explain Airworthiness Directives, and he picked a random example.  Oddly enough, he picked one that there was no documentation for – an aftermarket cabin heater.  Long story short, the mechanic had the copies of the “accessories” documentation, but the examiner said that we are going to have to get the paperwork figured out before we go on the check ride.  The mechanic was prepared to fax whatever we needed, but I was actually ok with stopping the examination since I was totally played out from the oral exam, which took close to three hours.

The aircraft’s annual inspection was scheduled for the next day, so we flew to Lansing and dropped the airplane off for its annual inspection.  Because of the inspection, and the holidays, I rescheduled the flight portion of the test for January 10.

January 10^th brought some poor weather in the morning, but since my check ride was scheduled for 1pm, we had some time to wait for it to move out of the area.  Our noon departure saw low clouds on the south side of Chicago, but it was clear in Wisconsin.  We were able to get on top and make an uneventful flight to Janesville for the flight portion of the test.

Meeting Chris Anderson once again, we got started on the flight briefing.  We were to perform stalls, unusual attitude recoveries, approaches, failed engines, precautionary shutdowns, missed approaches, and a whole variety of emergencies. 

We taxied out to runway 32 for departure.  I was asked to set up to intercept the 360-degree radial from the JVL VOR and fly it inbound – Maintain 3500 ft. 

We started the take-off roll, and the examiner simulated an engine failure with his foot pressing on a rudder pedal.  We recovered with closed throttles immediately and stopped on the runway.  We then took off from that point and I was under the hood for the remainder of the check ride.

I set up the number 1 VOR for JVL and set up the HSI to track the radial inbound.  I initially thought I set the HSI incorrectly, so I spun it around 180 degrees to show 360.  It still showed the same deflection, which confused me, and I ended up putting it back on the original setting of 180.  That should have been a clue.  After some time, I noticed on the moving map that we weren’t really flying toward the VOR.  I had thought I blew past the radial after take-off and started a turn toward 150 degrees to re-intercept.  No needle activity.  After spinning the HSI around to see what radial I was on, I wasn’t getting any indication.  But, I did IDENT the VOR and everything else was fine!  It was the OBS/CDI selector on the GPS – it was in GPS mode and not VOR/LOC.  I think at that point, I failed, but I wasn’t sure.  The examiner told me to go direct to JVL now that I had it figured out and set up for the VOR approach at Beloit.  No sweat.

I was about 12 miles away from the VOR and I was able to set up a course of 270.  Once I got to the VOR, I hit the timer and descended to 2700 ft.  After about a minute, I turned left to 253 for the procedure turn outbound.  One minute later, I turned inbound at 073 to intercept the final approach course - 118, which I set up on the OBS.  Oh no….  I couldn’t believe what I had just done.  When I was approaching the VOR, I SHOULD HAVE turned to intercept the 298 degree radial outbound.  I didn’t even turn and followed some imaginary 270 degree radial outbound.  Recognizing my mistake, I made an aggressive intercept to actually get to the 298 degree radial for my inbound leg.  I did the approach, circle approach and missed.

We then climbed up to do the air work.  Steep turns – Went well.  Stalls – He felt that I lost too much altitude (which he was right) on all of them (four).  Truth be told – I hadn’t practiced them under the hood, so I actually didn’t know what to expect.  I mis-read the Practical Test Standards and didn’t realize that these needed to be done under the hood.  The last time I did stalls under the hood was about 15 years ago – at least!  The unusual attitudes were just OK, and on the nose low recovery I didn’t bring back the power quickly enough.  At this point, I was just done.  We did an engine shutdown (scenario – he says uh oh, it looks like we have a pretty serious oil leak over here, what are you going to do) and that went well, other than the restart took forever.  Pushing the propeller full forward did the trick. The checklist says to just bring it forward of the detent.

At this time, I noticed that we were getting a little low on fuel in the mains, so I switched to the AUX tanks.  We had at least three approaches to do, and I wasn’t sure what the examiner wanted to do, but I was pretty much done – my performance was subpar for my standards and this caused me to want to conclude the checkride.

He told me to set up for the ILS 32 at JVL and failed the engine on procedure turn outbound.  I did the approach with the needles perfect.  A few moments before decision height, he asked if we are allowed to land on the AUX tanks.   I didn’t do the GUMPS check to see that I never switched back to the main tanks.   We landed and he gave me my well-deserved pink slip.  The first one ever.
 

On the debrief he mentioned that he wanted me to make all radio calls as though I was actually with a controller, and he wanted me to make all calls while at non towered airports (Beloit approach – I had the Unicom up, but didn’t make any radio calls.  We didn’t brief on how he wanted to handle that.  My fault).  Additionally, when experiencing an engine failure, you actually go through the motions.  Instead of just touching the Prop lever, he wants you to start to bring it back toward feather (which surprised me). He will grab it before you get to feather.  That way, there is no question on what Prop lever you were “going to” use.  He then sets up zero thrust for you.  He fails the engine by throttle only and makes you do the actual shut down.  He didn’t use mixture or fuel selector to fail an engine.

As I reflected on the check ride, I made a list of things we needed to accomplish on the re-test.  I then looked at my logbook and realized that it had been 62 days since I had flown last!  The holidays took my mind away from the test and the gap in flying made it practically impossible to take one of the most challenging check rides I’ve ever taken.

Chris Anderson was great – he was very helpful, and tried to make the environment as relaxed as possible.  The only thing that was unsettling on the check ride was that he was unusually silent.  I think he wants to give you the opportunity to figure out your mistakes, but it also creates an environment where you doubt yourself.  As an example, he let me go quite a long time on intercepting the 360-degree radial.  I ended up about 15 miles west of the JVL VOR.  He will not answer (won’t even respond to) questions and mainly just acts as a controller on all of the approaches - That’s it – and I totally understand that and that's the way it should be.

It truly was the toughest check ride I’ve ever taken in my life, and I have taken 9 of them.  I didn’t need the rating, and I never even planned on doing it, but I’m glad I did!

BPPP: By the Numbers

This article was published in the February 2017 issue of the American Bonanza Society magazine - www.bonanza.org

A large part of what I do as a flight instructor is providing flight reviews.  This gives me an opportunity to fly in many types of aircraft and observe different styles of flying.  A couple of weeks ago I was doing a flight review with a pilot and while performing maneuvers I noticed that he did not use consistent power settings for specific configurations of flight. I asked him if he would slow the airplane down to 120 knots in level flight, which he did, but it took a couple of adjustments of the throttle and trim.  I asked if he knew what power setting would give him 120 knots.  It took a moment, but he eventually gave me the right answer. It was clear that he did not routinely use pitch and power settings to achieve predictable performance of the aircraft. This is not uncommon, but it surprises me that some pilots I fly with haven’t heard of flying their aircraft by the numbers.

The By the Numbers (BTN) strategy is quite simple and has been an effective and safe way to fly aircraft since World War II. Author John Eckalbar did much to popularize this technique among Beech pilots in his book Flying the Beech Bonanza.  The technique is endorsed by the American Bonanza Society and taught in ABS’s BPPP as the preferred way of flying Beechcraft aircraft, making the aircraft much easier to fly and thereby increasing the level of safety. This methodology is particularly beneficial for pilots who exercise their instrument privileges, but also applies to pilots who are using their aircraft for VFR flight.

Instrument flying entails exact and precise control of your aircraft that requires changing of power settings promptly and accurately. There is very little time to try a throttle setting, wait to see how that affects the aircraft, and then readjust the throttle if needed at the same time you are looking through an approach chart and setting up your radios and GPS.  The BTN principle is rooted in the classic formula:  pitch + power = performance. It is nothing more than understanding that there is a power setting and attitude associated with airspeed and vertical speed.

There are nine phases of flight that require a change in aircraft configuration, and six settings a pilot can influence in order to affect indicated airspeed and vertical speed in a predictable way:

These phases along with their aircraft settings will give predictable performance as indicated in the sample PAC (Power, Attitude, Configuration) Chart for an O-470/ IO-470 powered Bonanza (see Figure 1 above). 

Initial Climb 

The goal is to gain as much altitude as possible in the shortest time.  This is done with full throttle (or red line), and maximum RPM.  In most Beechcraft aircraft, you will see about a 10 degree climb pitch with an associated airspeed close to what is noted in the takeoff checklist.  Flaps are normally up, and the gear is raised once a positive rate of climb is established. 

Cruise Climb 

Transition from Initial Climb to Cruise Climb is initiated by simply lowering the nose a few degrees and changing the propeller RPM.  This is done to provide for better cooling of the engine, better forward visibility, and a higher forward speed.  

Cruise 

Cruise configuration is something that should be very familiar to pilots, consisting of power settings derived from preflight motions intended to maximize range and speed.  Based on the numbers calculated for the conditions of the day, the pilot can expect to obtain predicted aircraft performance.  Small adjustments could be made to the cruise configuration to maximize fuel economy, speed or for comfort.  For example, I often fly a G36 Bonanza that doesn’t run as smoothly at 2300RPM as it does at 2350RPM. 

En Route Descent 

As the destination draws closer, you will be required to descend to an altitude for the approach segment of the flight or to pattern altitude.  En route descent numbers will give you good forward speed, a comfortable descent rate, and keep the engine warm.  Throttle control is important as the airspeed in the descent can easily creep into the yellow arc – a hazard if you encounter turbulence. 

Approach Level 

Approach configuration is a level flight attitude that will allow for enough forward speed, but be slow enough to convert to a landing.  This configuration is used when flying the approach and is slow enough to be able to drop the gear at the final approach fix, or to deploy flaps if needed at a phase in the approach.  The Approach Level configuration can also be used in the pattern for VFR pilots. 

Precision Descent 

The only change needed to transition from the approach level configuration is to extend the landing gear.  This will give between 500 and 600 feet per minute descent.  A slight power setting change may be needed to maintain the glide-path, but no trim changes should be necessary. 

Non-Precision Descent 

As with the Precision Descent configuration, the only configuration change required is extending the gear.  This will produce a stabilized descent of between 800 and 1000 feet per minute and should allow for a smooth descent to MDA.  On approaches that require an aggressive descent rate to meet MDA before the missed approach point, a reduction in power of a couple of inches will provide for an accelerated descent rate.

MDA Level 

Upon reaching MDA, a level off will be required to fly to the missed approach point.  This should be done with minimal aircraft re-configuration – by simply adding between six and seven inches of manifold pressure to maintain level flight.  The gear should be left in the down position. 

Missed Approach 

If a missed approach is required, the procedure will be very similar to the cruise climb procedure.  As depicted in the PAC chart, the procedure for a Bonanza with an IO-470 engine would be Full throttle, RPM at 2500, and 5 degrees up pitch.  After seeing a positive rate of climb, retract the flaps and gear. 

Knowing the numbers for your aircraft can you give you predictable performance for various phases of flight that are essential in the instrument environment, but also apply for every day flying such as initial descent, pattern entry, and landing. Besides the Precision and Non-Precision Descent configurations, all the other categories apply to VFR flight.  The Approach Level configuration would be used when flying the traffic pattern and while MDA Level may not be used, a pilot may find this configuration helpful if they find themselves in the pattern with the gear down for some reason.   

The By the Numbers technique reduces the workload for IFR flying and creates a safe and predictable flight environment for VFR flying as well. You can learn more about the technique in the BPPP Systems, Procedures and Techniques Course (BPPP Initial), available free to ABS members under TRAINING at www.bonanza.org.  Schedule some time with a BPPP instructor to review the numbers for your aircraft, and to fly a couple of scenarios to understand how this will help you fly your aircraft more precisely and effectively